Oh dear!
Whatever is the U.S. to do?
They are members of the non-proliferation treaty and now one of the major reasons to retain Israel as an asset--that of building a sidestore of up to 400 nuclear warheads outside the treaty--is about to disappear right out from under.

With regard to 'Khorasan'.
Nothing so complicated.
Basic psyops preparation.
No flag, no known central tenets, no known value, and fear thrives in the unknown.

The name?
An ancient name for part of northern Iran.
This is why the military reestablishment is required in Iraq, and the signature Kerry strives for, on the other side of Iran, in Afghanistan, for the military presence to be retained there.

It is obvious that there are too many alternate agendas involved in the 'nuclear' negotiations, for the U.S. to be able to force its own. Nuclear has never been a problem there, so now the alternate strategy is placed into effect and sometime in the future, through 'Khorasan', it will be established, for the edification of the base-level financiers, that Iran has been the home of international terrorism all along.

This changes the whole balance. With a U.S. general going to Israel and Obama going to Riyadh, all in the one week, the U.S. thought they had Iran in a pincer and covered, while they concentrated on the Ukraine and the South China Sea.

This changes all of that, and with North Korea's current attitude, it's obvious they don't intend to be left out of anything, either.

It's begining to look as though it might be hungry times ahead for the U.S. They already are, for the ones on the bottom of the pile that have been funding the rabid expansionist policy, but finally the ones that need to feel and understand regret will be reached, and America can start making it's way back towards what it once was, with all Americans making the decisions. You know, the way it was when it was a democracy.

The U.S. has only very recently relented in their policy in supplying military assets to the Iraqis, to hold back the insurgents who gain open access over their southern border. The main impetus for this, when observing the reluctance to do so beforehand, seems to have been the offer of the Iranians to do the same and to keep them out of the market.

Maliki may well see the most viable future for Iraq in getting rid of the massive bunker termed the 'U.S. Embassy', shutting off the southern border, and beginning reconstruction from there.

Many wouldn't see Iraq having any chance of survival on any meaningful level until that occurs. I definitely don't and I know I'm far from alone.

To be clear, the urging of acceptance by the U.S., is public.
The urging to refuse by the U.S. is very much under the table.

The apparent large findings of oil in the U.S., may well serve that market well, but there is still plenty of potential elsewhere.
The U.K., for example, is seriously looking at fracking as the North Sea fields are in the process of drying up.

This was their particular motivation for accessing Iran again, where B.P. actually began in Pahlavi's era. Iran, at over 4.2 million barrels/day, is the world's fourth largest producer.
WhadayaKnow?
Whowouldathunkit?

The other Arab nations are urging them to do so and the Arab League is also.

They won't however.
The U.S. is publicly pushing them to accept it, but I believe they are refusing it at the suggestion of the U.S., so that they can enact policy in the region without the encumbrance of the Security Council.

They want two things:

(1) Theological, and therefore, political, dominance in the region
(2) Dominance of the oil factor in the region, for resale to the West.

Both mean a requirement for subjugation of Iran.

Although, for mine, Iran is, by far, the more ethical of the two regimes.

I had a friend on the ground in Libya and got daily feed back that told me exactly how incompetent the NATO (that's *not* U.S.) forces operated.

He was a doctor from Egypt who drove a truck across the border and followed the rebel forces, patching thoings up as he went and keeping in touch with me on his Ubuntu laptop as he went to keep his sanity level together. At one stage he had his tent hospital set up outside the city of Misrata and the NATO jets were kind enough to strafe and rocket that for him.

What they couldn't understand was with accurate intelligence being fed to them, it took NATO jets longer to get to the targets than the road speed of the Russian tanks from Tripoli. They were wondering whose side they were on.

The first Iraq conflict?
Very common mistake.
There was only one with two fronts, with the naval blockade between the two, which amounted to no more than a siege.
Wheelbarrows were not permitted into Iraq because 'they could be employed to build plants to manufacture nuclear weaponry'. Vaccines were not permitted in 'because they could be employed to manufacture bacterial weapons', although, as most high school science students could tell you, the majority of vaccines employ dead bacterium. The pleas of the doctors from the Iraqi hospitals went unheard and 200,000 children below the age of five died during those years.

The only kind of war you can win and you weren't in that alone either.

"But I’m all for giving that grunt on point as much ballistic protection, firepower and situational awareness as he can handle."

I have friends with very personal experience of that.
New Zealand SAS working forward of forward, spotting, sending back accurate coordinates, then getting repeatedly shelled by their U.S. allies.
That's when they sent home for their own 25 pack howitzer crews, who could use artillery, and they made a name for themselves.

They had long given up on joint exercises with 'grunts' taking a stroll through the jungle, coked to the eye-balls and tape-players - the ghetto-blasters of the day- up to their ears, setting everybody up as a target.

Yes, military involvement is a step too far.
But do you really think they have the brains to see that?
They never have before.
They've lost every war they've ever participated in.
They were only on the winning *side* in the second world war.
Tell me what other war they have won.
They're even losing the one in Okinawa!
They're the most over-equipped, totally incompetent soldiers on the planet.

For the most part, I should agree with you Juan, but the U.S, has been supplying the 'rebels' with arms for some time, through Qatar, but the opposition movement has become so splintered now that it has become too hard to control or to predict who will come out on top.

It is this, I believe, that is the real motive for the requirement for direct intervention. Forget humanitarianism. You've got that right. Crocodile tears and no more. There are too many interests represented. Too many factions.

The whole situation needs to be brought under control in order to serve the interests of U.S. foreign policy and nothing short of direct action will do it now.

"And when you aren't wrong, you shouldn't back down to people who have nothing but silly conspiracy theories and no evidence."

There are plenty of examples of this.
Off the top of my head, Colin Powell pointing to a decidedly fuzzy, high resolution satellite image of a garbage truck as 'proof' of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. You know: the rational for the Iraqi second front.

I had an interchange with Richard Haas of the Foreign Policy Council the other day, after his statement. It appears very much as though the U.N. is very much a 'Tool of Trade' in regard to American Foreign Policy. To be employed where convenient and ignored when not.
My communication, thusly:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Richard,

Just writing to point out what would appear to be an inconsistency in U.S. policy.

It is an imperative for any recognition of a Palestinian State be approved by way of the Security Council, but, in the case of any intervention in Syria, to quote you - "To say only the UN Security Council can make something legitimate seems to me to be a position that cannot be supported because it would allow in this case a country like Russia to be the arbiter of international law and, more broadly, international relations."

If the United Nations is, in fact, obsolete, as your statement would appear to indicate, perhaps you would like to make this a little more apparent in your next media release?

Thanking you for your time and trouble in relation to this matter.
Kind regards,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Changing the music to suit *your* dance is not conducive to a party atmosphere, unless you are the only one at the party.

What were the hawks doing there 'negotiating for peace' then flying back to Washington to stage their 'Shock/Horror' Pontius Pilat act?

I wouldn't trust McCain and Graham as far as I could kick them.

Also, as an added feature:
The Egyptian military may be picking up $1.3B in U.S. pay roll these days, but that somewhat pales in proportion to the $13B from Saudi and the UAE.
Is Saudi Arabia interested in the Muslim Brotherhood holding any level of power in Egypt?
I doubt it.
I think their own particular brand of fanatic Wahabi would be preferred and this is what is happening here.
It'll stay that way too.
We now have 17 military officials in the new government and two police personalities, so Egypt is basically back to pre-revolution, square one.

Saudi Arabia invested *a lot* of money after the initial revolution stage and they don't want that to be wasted on any other Muslim influence than their own.

Morsi wasn't productive in regard to their Wahabi local representative's interests and wasn't productive in getting Egypt back into productive mode (as competition as yet another labour out-sourcing market to contain the price factor in the asian sector?), so the U.S. want him out also.

(1) To what degree has this guy been influenced by the U.S./U.K. block during negotiation functions?
(2) Does Iran need that influence when the effect of it is readily seen in other national contexts that 'democracy' has been imposed into?
(3) Is the fear factor imposed by a continuous and considerable threat of war on a civilian population indicative of democratic procedure?

In a world where population explosion is a common term and outsourcing is the order of the day to take advantage of it and on top of that, we breed our own replacements, we are nothing and less than nothing.

We work at jobs to produce the products that earn our pay, so that we can then almost afford to buy the products that we produce.

@Karina. That would be *exactly* why Israel's status doesn't show. The U.S. pays for Israel.
How else is it rationalised that Iran is harrassed over a fictional nuclear arms development programme - a perception that even Moussad has endorsed, in order to access an Iranian daily oil production of 4.2 million barrels, while Israel has been permitted, through French training and U.S. financing, to become the third most powerful nuclear state on the planet without so much as a murmur.

Showing comments 24 - 1Page: 1

Donations

Thank you to all of my supporters for your generosity and your encouragement of an independent press! Checks to